That Problem of Sex and Marriage
by JL Wall
Now, maybe this is because I’m coming at this argument from a Jewish perspective and tradition, but something seems flawed when Andrew Sullivan writes,
But once that is conceded, marriage equality is not only inevitable but logically necessary, and drawing the marital line at those who never can reproduce – as opposed to those who can but choose not to – can only be seen as a function of animus (or, in Rove’s empty calculations, short-term political advantage). That is especially true when civil marriage no longer even makes a pretense at being connected to procreation. I mean: how many post-menopausal wedding announcements have you read lately in the NYT?
The assumption that the question of the proper role of sex in marriage is always about reproduction (or, potentially gender roles, which Andrew also brings up, though not necessarily in relation to sex itself) has perplexed me for a while. Though it sounds almost corny, the Jewish view is that sex is also about unity and through that (as well as reproduction) holiness. In a marriage, the act itself is a mitzvah and integral to the marriage itself. Reproduction is a commandment, but sex (as far as I know) is still a mitzvah after menopause or if one partner (or both) is infertile. And, to paraphrase a bright young Orthodox rabbi I know, the Jewish view is that sex isn’t a mitzvah unless and until both partners achieve orgasm. (I haven’t actually checked that bit of halakhah myself, however.)
The objection, from that perspective, isn’t that the sex can’t result in reproduction, but that it isn’t the type which constitutes a mitzvah. And without “Jewishly legal” sex, a marriage can’t be whole. Of course, the Christian perspective is possibly (likely?) rather (?) different. But because of that, the, “Oh, so you think sex is only about reproduction? Well what about menopause and infertility?” arguments always strike me as straw men.
Do I think that it is the proper role of the government to enforce a more or less traditionally Jewish (or, if we prefer it, Christian, “Judeo-Christian,” or maybe just “traditional”) definition of marriage if the majority of citizens would rather that it not? No. Do I think, however, that one can make an argument against same-sex marriage because a certain type of sex is vital to the essence of marriage, without being accused of political crassness or medievalism? Yes.
Filed under: marriage, religion
Interesting…from my “christian” view: I have been married for 7 years. My wife and I have chosen to not have our own children. We have decided to foster and adopt children that were neglected, or abandon. I would say that our sex and lack of procreation absolutly does not define our marraige. I think what defines a marriage is the dedication and commitment between two consenting adults.
I would think that if sex with the intention of procreating defines a marriage, or even if it were just having sex in the traditional sense. There are alot of quadropeligics out there that don’t desearve to be married by that definition.
The reason andrew Sullivan is arguing the procreation angle is because Christians that rule the base of the rupublican party says gay sex is unnatural
Because it does not lead to proceation. Your understanding of sex being a love connection is why gay people should be married. Your religious dogma rules are ancient and without modern realistic equal rights. I’m ashamed of living under such religious supperstitious law. Get into the twenty first century or get left behind. Morals are made by man not god. Use your conscience not your old book of fables. The same lame religious arguements were used against black equal Marrage. Self introdpect your religion. I know the 9/11 highjackers didn’t. Don’t make the same ignorant mistakes they did by following the “rules”.
I agree with correct my religion. Until people start to understand that society is held back when we don’t work together as eficiently as possible we will never be as happy and as prosperious as we could be. A poor suffering child could be adopted by a loving gay couple that has all the protections, rights and respect other gay couples enjoy. Treating someone as a second class citizen doesn’t sound like something a god would approve of but then I know your gods are not perfect, because they were invented by man. Your god even ordered killing of women and children of men who were not theso called chosen people. How insane is that! Sounds like something Hitler would do, and you ignorant people worship this murderer. No wonder you can understand true morals.
Judging by the comments, JL, apparently not! I mean, you need to get into the 21st century, abandon your old book of fables, “self introdpect your religion”, and stop being so much like Hitler!
More seriously: am I right in recalling from a conversation with an Orthodox friend that traditional Judaism frowns on artificial contraceptives, too? If so do you know anything about the reasons for this? And are they connected to the kinds of issues you sketch above?
My understanding is that that’s the Orthodox view of it — my background is through Reform and Conservative shuls and minyans so I’m not too positive on the specifics, but if I had to hazard a GUESS, it would be: sex-as-commandment is connected with the act of procreation (the commandment to “be fruitful and multiply”); because it is also an act of creation, it is viewed (by some, at least) as being the closest that humans can come to that ability of the divine. And for both of those reasons, I believe that traditional Judaism views the reproductive aspect as the holiest aspect of sex — hence the frowning upon contraceptives (though I’m under the impression it’s a little more lax than the Catholic frowning; that could be wrong, though).
That being said, from my understanding, sex is a mitzvah within a marriage even if the marriage is incapable of producing children because it is viewed as a natural, essential element of the relationship between husband and wife — that the marriage is physical as well as emotional. (Judaism can be big on stressing the physical aspects of existence — hence all those laws about eating.) The problem with applying this aspect — again, from the “traditional” (which I like as a term because it’s more encompassing than “Orthodox”) perspective — to same-sex marriage is that it specifically requires a man and a woman; the “unity” aspect is drawn from Adam and Eve; and there are those passages from Leviticus that we all have heard about by now. The question from this angle isn’t whether the couple would be loving of each other and any adopted children, if they would form the committed partnership of marriage, if they would be faithful, etc.: the question is whether you can have a “Jewish” marriage without the physical aspect (and the physical mitzvah) — because the physical is viewed as supportive (and in some cases very important) to all that was listed before.
That being said, I’m not married; I have no first hand knowledge of marriage; and I am BY NO MEANS AN AUTHORITY on the relevant halakhic opinions and the relevant modern responses to those opinions. It’s more likely than not that I got at least something wrong, and if anyone is really truly interested they should either ask a rabbi, a book, or an Orthodox friend (preferably a married one)…
Anyway, my point was that I think arguments against opponents of same-sex marriage based on the, “Well, what about menopause?” line of thought are annoying straw men that aren’t conducive to actual debate and discussion. Opponents of same-sex marriage are at least as guilty. And as I hope I’ve made clear, my opinions on same-sex marriage in Judaism and in the United States are not the same thing (and shouldn’t be for Jewish reasons as well as political ones).
FWIW, JL’s summary of the traditional Jewish perspective sounds very much like (though almost certainly not identical to) the Cat’lick one. He might be interested in some of the “theology of the body” writing from John Paul II, especially given that JPII’s work focuses on the theological meanings of the union of Adam and Eve in Eden–_before_ they had children.
Of course, in both the Bible (Song of Songs, most obvious example) and Church tradition, a LOT of the culture/theology/poetry of marriage focuses on the couple’s love and unity rather than on children. Sex difference (or: uniting the two sexes) is a constant in these passages but childbearing is not.
This is not to denigrate procreation (and JL rightly notes its link to _creation_, above), just to note that in Catholic thought marriage as the union of the sexes does not stem from exclusive focus on reproduction and nothing else ever!
Re procreation, you all might like this poem:
http://plagiarist.com/poetry/5632/
I was going to say a similar thing; I’m not a huge fan of the way that the language “unitive” and “procreative” often gets trotted out in Catholic contexts, but the underlying principles that it’s supposed to articulate are, I think, very much indeed like these traditionally Jewish ones. It’s not that hard for me, anyway, to see why there can be morally significant differences between deliberately interfering in the sexual act in a way that interferes with its orientation toward procreation and simply going in for unfettered sex in cases where procreation is impossible or unlikely.